(Click picture for full size)
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Project 3: Illustrator Monster
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Homework 6: Assorted Art
Ryoji Ikeda, "Test Pattern 100m Version"
Sondra Perry, "Young Women Sitting and Standing and Talking and Stuff (No, No, No)"
I'm honestly not sure if this piece should be classed as visual art, auditory art, or (most likely) something in between. By translating digital data into base binary and syncing up the resulting lightshow with a soundtrack somewhere between a machine gun shootout and a techno rave, then displaying it in massive proportions, Ryoji Ikeda creates an epilepsy-inducing experience that is nevertheless a clever commentary on the pervasiveness of digital media throughout our lives.
According to the creator's website, the core meaning of the piece is "to examine the relationship between critical points of device performance and the threshold of human perception, pushing both to their absolute limits," and it certainly accomplishes that. The project is harrowing to walk through, and enrapturing at the same time. The endless barrage of light and sound leaves the mind dazed and confused, but thrilled at the same time. At its most basic level, it could be considered akin to watching an exciting movie or special-effects-heavy play or dance routine: it is an intense sensory experience born from (but not reliant upon) an underlying concept.
While it has little to nothing in common with traditional, "historical" art, it does make one think about the role of technology in modern society. The project seems to visualize the way technology surrounds us, inescapable and unceasing.
I'm sorry, I really am, but with the mask things blocking their noses all I could see was:
I'm not really sure what the artist was trying to convey here. Gossip is not a rare occurrence in modern society, true. But what were the masks for? To make them look like teenage girls who rolled their eyes one too many times? That's the only hypothesis I can come up with. I'm also having a hard time being able to tell if the subjects of their conversation (boyfriends, gay marriage, illegal immigrants) had any relevance to the meaning of the project, or if they were picked just because they were trending topics that might frequently be discussed among friends in reality.
Checking the artist's website does little to clear up the questions. The "thots" (thoughts?) page is a short rant that would be more at home on tumblr (you know which side of tumblr I'm talking about) expressing anger at "a racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist society". That might explain the focus on the girls' conversation, but aside from that, the entire thing seems rather disjointed and confusing. Perry obviously has problems with modern-day society, but if she is attempting to change it through her art, she may need to reconsider her strategies.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Project 2: "Bodies" Collage
In my photomanipulation, I tried to capture the effort and soul that an artist puts into their work. Each piece could almost considered, in a metaphorical way, to be a reflection of themselves, a piece of the creator. While what they visualize may differ from what is produced, in the end, it's still theirs, and that should count for something.
Stock Credit (I'm used to listing this out for my personal pieces and I feel weird if I don't):
BG: http://random-acts-stock.deviantart.com/art/Baroque-room-1-72942811
Dress: http://azreheal.deviantart.com/art/wedding-dress-2-84026953
Woman: http://lalunatique.deviantart.com/art/STOCK-I-paint-V2-395153021
Field: http://lylicagalatea.deviantart.com/art/Flower-field-pano-stock-83294259
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Homework 5: More Appropriation
These questions were rather varied, so I'm going to do short answers rather than one essay.
What do you think it means to be an "appropriation artist"? Do you think all artists working today may fit that description? Why or why not?
Appropriation by definition is taking something someone else owns. An appropriation artist takes other artist's work and uses it in their own works. While the word usually carries rather negative connotations, I will admit that not every work that could be considered "appropriation" is necessarily art theft. I myself enjoy creating photomanipulations such as this (don't ask about the context, it's a long story) from free stock images available online, and many other artists do the same, some for profit (some stock providers allow their images to be used in commercial works, some do not), others for fun. However, there is a marked difference between using free stock images and providing proper credit to the original photographer, and outright stealing another artist's final creative product for financial gain.
This article gives examples about how the notion of appropriation can date back to as early as the 16th century; what do you think about that? Aside from the technological aspects, are artists working today appropriating any differently then those artists working then?
Unfortunately, there have been coattail-riders and ambitiously lazy people for as long as the concept of "art" has existed, and they aren't likely to go away anytime soon. With the advent of the computer, the internet, and photo-editing software, it has become even easier for appropriation artists to find new material to claim as their own.
The artist Marcel Duchamp (who we looked at when we talked about Nude Descending a Staircase) is often attributed to be the grandfather of contemporary art as we know it today. There are a couple major instances where he used a very blatant form of appropriation - can you find one (aside from the urinal)?
What are the differences between "high" and "low" art? Do you think those definitions change when one is appropriated into the other?
What do you think the difference is between "appropriation" and "sampling"? What about "image transfer"?
What do you think about Kelley's "Black Star Press" work? Does the notion of Kelley being a white artist either add a layer of context or take away from it? Do you think it "appropriate" for Kelley to be "appropriating" such imagery?
What do you think it means to be an "appropriation artist"? Do you think all artists working today may fit that description? Why or why not?
Appropriation by definition is taking something someone else owns. An appropriation artist takes other artist's work and uses it in their own works. While the word usually carries rather negative connotations, I will admit that not every work that could be considered "appropriation" is necessarily art theft. I myself enjoy creating photomanipulations such as this (don't ask about the context, it's a long story) from free stock images available online, and many other artists do the same, some for profit (some stock providers allow their images to be used in commercial works, some do not), others for fun. However, there is a marked difference between using free stock images and providing proper credit to the original photographer, and outright stealing another artist's final creative product for financial gain.
This article gives examples about how the notion of appropriation can date back to as early as the 16th century; what do you think about that? Aside from the technological aspects, are artists working today appropriating any differently then those artists working then?
Unfortunately, there have been coattail-riders and ambitiously lazy people for as long as the concept of "art" has existed, and they aren't likely to go away anytime soon. With the advent of the computer, the internet, and photo-editing software, it has become even easier for appropriation artists to find new material to claim as their own.
The artist Marcel Duchamp (who we looked at when we talked about Nude Descending a Staircase) is often attributed to be the grandfather of contemporary art as we know it today. There are a couple major instances where he used a very blatant form of appropriation - can you find one (aside from the urinal)?
...So urinals are art now?
I'm sorry, Mr. Kass. Please don't give me an F.
Anyway, aside from the urinal, he passed off a bicycle wheel as art too.
I'm guessing high art is fancy, scholarly pieces with obscure and debatable meanings that is sold to museums or upper-crust private collectors for six/seven/eight figures, while low art can be understood and appreciated with a more-reasonable amount of effort. Seeing as I want to be a game designer/digital artist and not an art critic, hopefully I'll be able to stick with "low" art instead of quitting the medium altogether. When involved in appropriation, I would imagine that they become whatever the new "artist" intends it to be, or whatever they're willing to let the critics say.
The term "sampling" is usually used in music, but in general art, I imagine it would be using a small piece of a previous work or employing a technique used to create that work, as opposed to using the whole piece outright. "Image transfer" could either be tracing or electronically copying artwork (which is how middle-schoolers appropriate artwork), or using an actual method of mixed-media to create something new.
The article makes no mention of his race, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me to wonder what it was. Depending on how one chooses to analyze it, it could go either way. Personally, I'm curious as to what made him decide to work with these photographs and his feelings on their historical context. However, defacing iconic photographs seems just a bit disrespectful to me.
Think about the way Miranda Lichtenstein talks about "reappropriation" and this notion that almost anything can be termed "appropriated," especially if it's based off of something that has happened already in real life; in this terminology, any kind of documentary or viewing of documented film can be considered an appropriation. Do you agree with that assessment?
She certainly does have a point in that all nearly works of art from visual to literary to musical are built on the foundations of that which came before it. However, what makes art art, at least in my opinion, is the ability to create something that is entirely your own, even if it can be said to draw inspiration from another source. This should not be confused with creating something directly from another source (looking at you, Richard Prince).
Pick one of these other artists mentioned in the article, research them, and talk about their work some. Tell me why you chose them and what you find interesting about what they do:
Although I'm beginning to lose what little appreciation I had for "fine art", I did find the works of Sara VanDerBeek interesting, as (most of) her pieces demonstrate the concept of appropriation in a way that isn't outright thievery for once. She takes ordinary objects and assembles them herself to create a unique construct that is engaging to look at and ponder. While her use of magazine images in some works might be considered copyright violation, for the most part her sculptures are compared of random refuse arranged ornamentally, displaying creativity rather than thievery.
Think about the way Miranda Lichtenstein talks about "reappropriation" and this notion that almost anything can be termed "appropriated," especially if it's based off of something that has happened already in real life; in this terminology, any kind of documentary or viewing of documented film can be considered an appropriation. Do you agree with that assessment?
She certainly does have a point in that all nearly works of art from visual to literary to musical are built on the foundations of that which came before it. However, what makes art art, at least in my opinion, is the ability to create something that is entirely your own, even if it can be said to draw inspiration from another source. This should not be confused with creating something directly from another source (looking at you, Richard Prince).
Pick one of these other artists mentioned in the article, research them, and talk about their work some. Tell me why you chose them and what you find interesting about what they do:
Although I'm beginning to lose what little appreciation I had for "fine art", I did find the works of Sara VanDerBeek interesting, as (most of) her pieces demonstrate the concept of appropriation in a way that isn't outright thievery for once. She takes ordinary objects and assembles them herself to create a unique construct that is engaging to look at and ponder. While her use of magazine images in some works might be considered copyright violation, for the most part her sculptures are compared of random refuse arranged ornamentally, displaying creativity rather than thievery.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Homework 4: Appropriation
In the world of art, whether visual, musical, or literary, it can be difficult to draw the line between being inspired by another piece of art and downright plagiarizing it. However, when one actually uses that original work in their own piece, things become somewhat simpler. Under U.S. copyright law, "fair use" allows copyrighted material such as art or literature to be quoted or used for the purposes of critique, news, education, and research. Plagiarism, in contrast, is defined as the wrongful appropriation, stealing, and publication of artistic material without providing due credit or pay to the original creator.
Under this logic, it becomes rather evident that Richard Prince is not a daring, provocative artist at all, but a thief who took advantage of the abstract concept of art and the resulting flexibility of the laws surrounding it to wrong another, more artistic mind. To take another's labor, change it just enough to claim ownership, and then sell it is piggybacking at best and outright robbery at worst. While one could claim that Prince's works are different enough, supposedly due to carrying a "hectic and provocative" aesthetic in comparison to the serenity shown in Patrick Cariou's original work, one could also claim that Prince's "art" is nonsensical, crude, and just plain ugly. Art's subjective like that. The bottom line is that Prince purposefully took another's works and used them for profit without providing credit or recompense to Cariou, and used the resulting controversy to create publicity for himself and as a springboard for further acts of plagiarism on Instagram. Clever? Yes. Disrespectful and lazy? Also yes.
It's true that by posting a picture on social media, that picture becomes public, accessible to everyone with an internet connection. That’s one of the risks that come with the ability to connect with others across the globe. One could also argue that those who post provocative or exposing images of themselves do so essentially for attention; by being featured in an art gallery, they’re getting all the attention they could ever wish for. But unless Prince is paying them royalties for using their pictures, then it’s theft, plain and simple.
Artistic appropriation can be a source of fear for any who rely on their creativity to make a living, whether they are new to the field or accomplished artists. People such as Prince being allowed to freely use another’s work for profit undermine the principles of artistic integrity and discourage the introduction of new ideas and content for fear of losing them to another. Laws protecting creative property should be tightened in order to prevent such acts from taking place in order to ensure that all can safely express themselves in whatever medium they choose.
So yes, Richard Prince does indeed suck. In fact, I'd like to say things about him far worse than that, but seeing as this is my school blog, that probably wouldn't be a very good idea.
Under this logic, it becomes rather evident that Richard Prince is not a daring, provocative artist at all, but a thief who took advantage of the abstract concept of art and the resulting flexibility of the laws surrounding it to wrong another, more artistic mind. To take another's labor, change it just enough to claim ownership, and then sell it is piggybacking at best and outright robbery at worst. While one could claim that Prince's works are different enough, supposedly due to carrying a "hectic and provocative" aesthetic in comparison to the serenity shown in Patrick Cariou's original work, one could also claim that Prince's "art" is nonsensical, crude, and just plain ugly. Art's subjective like that. The bottom line is that Prince purposefully took another's works and used them for profit without providing credit or recompense to Cariou, and used the resulting controversy to create publicity for himself and as a springboard for further acts of plagiarism on Instagram. Clever? Yes. Disrespectful and lazy? Also yes.
It's true that by posting a picture on social media, that picture becomes public, accessible to everyone with an internet connection. That’s one of the risks that come with the ability to connect with others across the globe. One could also argue that those who post provocative or exposing images of themselves do so essentially for attention; by being featured in an art gallery, they’re getting all the attention they could ever wish for. But unless Prince is paying them royalties for using their pictures, then it’s theft, plain and simple.
Artistic appropriation can be a source of fear for any who rely on their creativity to make a living, whether they are new to the field or accomplished artists. People such as Prince being allowed to freely use another’s work for profit undermine the principles of artistic integrity and discourage the introduction of new ideas and content for fear of losing them to another. Laws protecting creative property should be tightened in order to prevent such acts from taking place in order to ensure that all can safely express themselves in whatever medium they choose.
So yes, Richard Prince does indeed suck. In fact, I'd like to say things about him far worse than that, but seeing as this is my school blog, that probably wouldn't be a very good idea.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)